Fri, Feb 26, 2016·SAP Center at San Jose, San Jose
Buffalo Sabres 3, San Jose Sharks 1
Three stars
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 56% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BUF | 07 | 18 | 27 | 322 |
| SJS | 16 | 09 | 010 | 125 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 1:28SJSMarc-Edouard VlasicAssists: Matt Nieto · Wrist, 0.02 xG0–1
- P2 13:38BUFJohan LarssonAssists: Brian Gionta · Wrist, 0.16 xG1–1
- P3 12:36BUFZach BogosianGWGAssists: Zemgus Girgensons, Sam Reinhart · Wrist, 0.05 xG2–1
- P3 18:43BUFEvander KaneENAssists: Zach Bogosian · Wrist, 0.69 xG3–1
Replay
Watch the game unfold on the ice: every shot, hit, turnover and faceoff appears as it happened, then fades. Drag the timeline to jump; goals are marked on it.
20:00
P1
- P1 20:00Eichel won the faceoff against Couture
- Goal
- Shot
- Miss
- Block
- Hit
- Takeaway
- Giveaway
- Faceoff
- Penalty
The numbers
Team totals, side by side.
Line combinations that worked
Model-basedEach team's forward lines and defence pairs at 5-on-5 (two minutes or more together), best first by expected goals for minus against.
Buffalo Sabres
Forward lines
- bestGirgensons – Bailey – Reinhart3:40
xG 0.19–0.00 (100%)attempts 5–3goals 1–0
- Gionta – Foligno – Larsson11:36
xG 0.35–0.22 (62%)attempts 10–10goals 1–0
- McGinn – Girgensons – Eichel5:00
xG 0.10–0.04 (73%)attempts 3–3goals 0–0
- Kane – Bailey – Reinhart4:38
xG 0.20–0.14 (58%)attempts 5–2goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- Colaiacovo – Pysyk13:41
xG 0.27–0.24 (53%)attempts 10–13goals 0–0
- Bogosian – McCabe21:24
xG 0.65–0.63 (51%)attempts 19–22goals 2–0
- Gorges – Ristolainen21:33
xG 0.09–1.16 (7%)attempts 9–20goals 0–1
San Jose Sharks
Forward lines
- bestThornton – Pavelski – Hertl15:22
xG 0.83–0.28 (75%)attempts 16–11goals 0–0
- Marleau – Couture – Donskoi14:41
xG 0.49–0.16 (76%)attempts 17–9goals 0–0
- Zubrus – Tierney – Karlsson10:33
xG 0.29–0.14 (67%)attempts 3–9goals 0–0
- Ward – Spaling – Nieto12:03
xG 0.34–0.27 (55%)attempts 14–5goals 1–1
Defence pairs
- bestVlasic – Braun14:49
xG 0.73–0.12 (85%)attempts 19–8goals 1–0
- Polak – Dillon16:51
xG 0.59–0.39 (60%)attempts 14–18goals 0–1
- Burns – Vlasic4:28
xG 0.15–0.09 (61%)attempts 6–4goals 0–1
How the game flowed
Model-basedChance quality for each side, minute by minute, with pressure underneath.
Running total of expected goals for each team. Steep climbs are spells of pressure; dots are goals. Shaded bands mark power plays (team colour), 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 (grey) and empty nets.
Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute
Win probability
Model-basedHow each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.
SJS's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line SJS is favoured, below it BUF. Dots are goals.
Did the better team win?
Every shot replayed 10,000 times, scoring with its expected-goal probability.
Based on shot quality alone, San Jose Sharks win this game 56% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (SJS − BUF), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).